5.  On 13 March 2001 a mother contacted the police on account of a suspicion that her child R., a girl born in December 1986, had some ten days earlier been sexually abused by a relative, the applicant. On 21 March 2001 the police took a statement from the mother. On 9 July 2001 the police questioned the applicant. R. was interviewed by the police on 30 July 2001 in the presence of a social worker. No other person was present at the interview, nor was it recorded.
6.  The applicant was subsequently charged before the Tampere District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) with having sexually abused R., who was 14 years’ old at the time, by touching her sexual organs. The applicant denied the charge. The court received testimony from R.’s mother and the applicant as well as three witnesses who testified on the applicant’s behalf. The prosecutor submitted a video recording of two interviews with R. conducted by a medical expert, H., on 17 and 18 April 2001. H. was heard as a witness in this connection. The prosecutor also submitted a medical statement containing an assessment of the interviews in question and another medical certificate containing findings relating to R.’s physical examination. The prosecutor further produced a statement given on 14 March 2001 by a rehabilitation centre for intellectually disabled persons. From the statement it transpired that R. had the intelligence level of a child aged 6 to 8½ years. Written evidence of R.’s need for professional help was submitted on her behalf.
7.  On 20 November 2001 the District Court convicted the applicant of sexual abuse of a child and sentenced him to a suspended term of seven months’ imprisonment. As evidence, the court relied firstly on the testimony of R.’s mother, which it found more credible than that of the applicant and his witnesses and secondly, on the video recording along with H.’s testimony. The court noted that R. had given similar accounts of the events to her mother and to H. It further noted that during the interviews R. had talked to H. openly and with confidence, but her behaviour had clearly changed when the issue of the alleged abuse had been broached. R. had, nevertheless, been able to give an account of the events in a rather versatile and detailed manner. The recording gave the court no reason to suspect that R. had been repeating some other person’s words or that she had imagined the events.
8.  The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), arguing, inter alia, that the District Court should not have decided the case without hearing R. in person. He had not been given the opportunity to put questions to R. at any point of the proceedings. Nor had he been given an opportunity to watch the video recording of her interviews before the main hearing, yet the recording had been an essential part of the evidence leading to his conviction. The applicant requested that the Court of Appeal hold an oral hearing and that R. be heard in person.
9.  On 9 January 2003 the Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s request to hear R. in person as it might be detrimental to her, taking into account her level of development and the nature of the issue in question. The court relied on the principle contained in section 10(1) of the Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings (laki oikeudenkäynnin julkisuudesta, lag om offentlighet vid rättegång, Act No. 945/1984), which provided that a person below the age of 15 could not attend a hearing if the court found that this could be detrimental to him or her, and to section 15(2) of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act (laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta, lag angående vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt, Act No. 361/1983), which provided that a child could be heard in court only if it was clear that this would not be detrimental to him or her. This decision was not subject to separate appeal.
10.  In the subsequent oral hearing, the Court of Appeal was presented with the same evidence as had been before the District Court, with the addition of four photographs and the floor plan of the applicant’s apartment. On 27 February 2003 the court upheld the lower court’s judgment finding no reason to deviate from its assessment of the evidence.
11.  The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) maintaining, inter alia, that his Convention right to examine witnesses against him had been breached. He requested, inter alia, that the court refer the case back to the lower courts for re-examination and that he be granted an opportunity to put questions to R., either in an oral hearing or by using other arrangements. In the alternative, the applicant requested that an oral hearing be held in the Supreme Court and that testimony be obtained from the applicant and the three witnesses on his behalf.
12.  On 14 January 2004 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.